Just as everyone is childish. Some choose to grow up and some... don't.

Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

First, businesses don't have rights. People do.
Second, as someone mentioned previously in this thread, if you stop buying from papa john's that will only mean more layoffs of employees, not of the people who made the bad decision that you disagree with. In effect, in this situation, there is no way to use the free market to voice your opinion.

No. That's not how it works entirely.

If there is a certain demand for fast food pizza chains those chains are going to pop up to meet that certain demand, to which I can say there certainly is a demand for this business because lots of these exist. Obviously some things like fast food pizza aren't a commodity that people absolutely need and they can do without (which does effect the model some).

Anyways if you (an average fast food pizza lover) stop going to Papa Johns because you're disgusted with their policies (whatever they might be) or the price some other chain in the business is bound to pick up the slack. If fast food pizza to these people is a necessity in their eyes, then they won't stop buying pizza altogether, they will just take their business elsewhere. These businesses start seeing increase demand for their product and have the option to expand their work force.

It might not be an exact 1:1 ratio of people who lost their job from Papa Johns because different businesses have different practices, but it's safe to say that if there was a huge backlash against Papa Johns that the rest of the fast food pizza industry (and lets face it, fast food in general) would pick up the slack. You see this in business practice all the time.

Some businesses go out of business for a multitude of reasons. The demand is no longer there for a product, or other competing businesses run them out of business.

So no it doesn't work that way. If you're upset at a business for politicizing an issue that you think is childish you have every right to do so. If enough people raise a stink at them firing people then the previous demand has to be met somewhere, to make up that demand other fast food places will probably have more openings. And hey, if you had previous experience in that field of work because you worked at Papa Johns, it would probably be favorable for you to apply to another place.

Well if you don't have the laws on your side, anyone can take it from you. It's why we have laws against murder. The life/liberty/property is a quote from John Lock.

From Wiki:
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776[2] The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Declaration of Independence isn't legally binding. Additionally, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happines" meant that you have the right not to have your life, liberty or ability to pursue happiness from you. Not that others must provide you with life, liberty or happiness. So that phrase actually contradicts the idea that you have a right to force others to pay for your healthcare. But as I said, it's not the constitution or a law or anything like that.

Still was signed and thus carries legal weight in terms of philosophical direction.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

Declaration of Independence isn't legally binding. Additionally, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happines" meant that you have the right not to have your life, liberty or ability to pursue happiness from you. Not that others must provide you with life, liberty or happiness. So that phrase actually contradicts the idea that you have a right to force others to pay for your healthcare. But as I said, it's not the constitution or a law or anything like that.

It was a statement adopted by the Continetal Congress and does in fact carry legal weight, contrary to your statements.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

It doesn't have to be legally binding to carry legal and philosophical weight.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:15 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Diurdi

What exactly does the bolded mean. You're just throwing out words man.

It means that it carries importance in terms of interpretation of the law and of human rights. So when you ask "who says it's a human right", the UDHR is an entirely valid statement of that which the US government did sign.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

Deep down where? In the loins? Why is it so deep down and not very shallow?

There's a difference between being selfish to the point of making a very comfortable living, and being selfish to a point where you literally step all over people just to make another dollar even though you already have millions. The large majority of people are the former.

Yes everyone has greed and is selfish but there is Good greed/selfish and then there is bad the version. the small difference in the two is would you walk over or step on someone else to get more ahead in live I personally would not.

Personally I enjoy helping others dose not matter if they are friends/family/strangers.

It was a statement adopted by the Continetal Congress and does in fact carry legal weight, contrary to your statements.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. Some right-wing people usually try to claim that it does have some legal significance, but that's about it. They usually like it because it says that our rights come from god.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 09:18 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Didactic

I
It means that it carries importance in terms of interpretation of the law and of human rights. So when you ask "who says it's a human right", the UDHR is an entirely valid statement of that which the US government did sign.

The US court system doesn't recognize it as a legally binding document. Thus "human rights" within the document aren't actual legal rights. Just rights that some people came up with.

LOL! This is no surprise. Oddly enough, Papa Johns was my first real job.

But then a got another job working with someone who also used to also work at Papa John's, but he worked with and knew John Schnatter and said he was a complete douchebag irl.

Everytime I saw a Papa John's commercial after he told me that, I would always think about what he said. And if you are really good, you can even see that through his commercials. I guess it was true after all.

How do you think you got that big fancy house Mr. Schnatter? Couldn't be from all the employees you have working for your company making and delivering your shitty ass pizza so you could afford such a place. And now, you want to deny them Healthcare? GG, bro. GG.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. Some right-wing people usually try to claim that it does have some legal significance, but that's about it. They usually like it because it says that our rights come from god.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 09:18 PM ----------

The US court system doesn't recognize it as a legally binding document. Thus "human rights" within the document aren't actual legal rights. Just rights that some people came up with.

They're still human rights and the document was still signed by the USA. You're changing the goalposts.

In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.

Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. Some right-wing people usually try to claim that it does have some legal significance, but that's about it. They usually like it because it says that our rights come from god.

It has been used as a point of reference by the judiciary to ascertain the intentions of the founders in a number of legal situations; ergo, it does carry legal weight. Plus, if it didn't you could argue that the US never legally declared independence from Britain.

The US court system doesn't recognize it as a legally binding document. Thus "human rights" within the document aren't actual legal rights. Just rights that some people came up with.

You seem to have a problem grasping the nuances between legally-binding, legal-weight, and philosophical context.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

If there is a certain demand for fast food pizza chains those chains are going to pop up to meet that certain demand, to which I can say there certainly is a demand for this business because lots of these exist. Obviously some things like fast food pizza aren't a commodity that people absolutely need and they can do without (which does effect the model some).

Anyways if you (an average fast food pizza lover) stop going to Papa Johns because you're disgusted with their policies (whatever they might be) or the price some other chain in the business is bound to pick up the slack. If fast food pizza to these people is a necessity in their eyes, then they won't stop buying pizza altogether, they will just take their business elsewhere. These businesses start seeing increase demand for their product and have the option to expand their work force.

It might not be an exact 1:1 ratio of people who lost their job from Papa Johns because different businesses have different practices, but it's safe to say that if there was a huge backlash against Papa Johns that the rest of the fast food pizza industry (and lets face it, fast food in general) would pick up the slack. You see this in business practice all the time.

Some businesses go out of business for a multitude of reasons. The demand is no longer there for a product, or other competing businesses run them out of business.

So no it doesn't work that way. If you're upset at a business for politicizing an issue that you think is childish you have every right to do so. If enough people raise a stink at them firing people then the previous demand has to be met somewhere, to make up that demand other fast food places will probably have more openings. And hey, if you had previous experience in that field of work because you worked at Papa Johns, it would probably be favorable for you to apply to another place.

So on the other hand instead of laying people off Papa Johns raises their prices and one of two things happens. People stop going there because they can find it cheaper elsewhere or we the consumer have to pay higher prices because some people were not responsible enough to know what they "needed" in life vs what they wanted to buy with their money.

It has been used as a point of reference by the judiciary to ascertain the intentions of the founders in a number of legal situations; ergo, it does carry legal weight. Plus, if it didn't you could argue that the US never legally declared independence from Britain.

Don't even joke about that, we don't want them back. Look at what they did

In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.

Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.

why are people surprised by this? When Obamacare passed originally many business owners said they would be reducing hours, laying off workers, etc because of it. Contrary to popular belief this would not have occured if Romney were elected. Romney would have repealed obamacare, lowered the corporate tax rate, and given business incentives for having healthcare for their employees. But, Obama won and this is what the people wanted apparently so don't seem surprised.